Create an Account
username: password:
 
  MemeStreams Logo

The Volokh Conspiracy - District Court Holds that Running Hash Values on Computer Is A Search:

search

Decius
Picture of Decius
Decius's Pics
My Blog
My Profile
My Audience
My Sources
Send Me a Message

sponsored links

Decius's topics
Arts
  Literature
   Sci-Fi/Fantasy Literature
  Movies
   Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films
  Music
   Electronic Music
Business
  Finance & Accounting
  Tech Industry
  Telecom Industry
  Management
  Markets & Investing
Games
Health and Wellness
Home and Garden
  Parenting
Miscellaneous
  Humor
  MemeStreams
Current Events
  War on Terrorism
Recreation
  Cars and Trucks
  Travel
Local Information
  United States
   SF Bay Area
    SF Bay Area News
Science
  Biology
  History
  Math
  Nano Tech
  Physics
Society
  Economics
  Politics and Law
   Civil Liberties
    Internet Civil Liberties
    Surveillance
   Intellectual Property
  Media
   Blogging
Sports
Technology
  Computer Security
  Macintosh
  Spam
  High Tech Developments

support us

Get MemeStreams Stuff!


 
The Volokh Conspiracy - District Court Holds that Running Hash Values on Computer Is A Search:
Topic: Miscellaneous 6:15 pm EDT, Oct 29, 2008

This is me writing:

I don't like Caballes. I think it leads to a dark future. Stevens wrote: “Critical to that [Kyllo] decision was the fact that the device was capable of detecting lawful activity."

So, based on your analysis that the search only occurs when it provides a result to a human, and the holding in Caballes that any result provided to a human that could only pertain to unlawful activity cannot be called a search, it seems this is not a search (for 4th amendment purposes).

Edge cases about hash collisions would likely be dismissed as easily as edge cases about the police misinterpreting the dog or the dog barking at the wrong time.

So, the bottom line becomes, any technology that we can develop to collect information about crimes is A-OK so long as it never provides any information to a human being unless an actual crime has been committed.

Let your fantasies about orwellian high-tech distopias fly! Hash checks of internet communications at ISP's? Check! Compulsary installation of face recognition cameras in all private buildings? No problem!

Artificial intelligences that read email correspondence or analyze search engine queries for patterns indicating criminal behavior? Well, they would have to be highly accurate, which is a bit far fetched by present technological standards, but if they were, then that might be alright as well...

Eventually in the distant future, you reach a point that has been mentioned by previous posters, where you've replaced your human police officers with robots... These robots are artificially intelligent and never report the results of their investigations to humans unless a crime has been committed.

Under this analysis I cannot see how the Constitution would prohibit these robots from doing all of the tyrannical things that the 4th amendment was intended to prevent the police from doing, and I don't see how this state of affairs would be materially different from not having any 4th amendment at all.

Therefore, if the 4th amendment is to have any meaning at all, there must be some reason that this kind of automated search is not reasonable.

Scalia offered the following in reference to Caballes: "This is not a new technology. This is a dog." I find that explanation extremely unsatisfying.

The Volokh Conspiracy - District Court Holds that Running Hash Values on Computer Is A Search:



 
 
Powered By Industrial Memetics
RSS2.0